Table 2.

Assessed Tasks.

Task and key reference	Domain	Task aim and description	Dependent measure(s)
Stop task Logan (1994)	Cool EF	Motor inhibition. The task consisted of go-trials and stop- trials. Go-trials required execution of a two-choice reaction time task, requiring either a left or right button press. Stop-trials were identical to go trials, but in addition a visual stop-signal was presented, instructing children to withhold their response. The delay between go- and stop-signal was dynamically adjusted to accomplish 50% successful inhibition on stop-trials	SSRT measuring the latency of the inhibition process
Digit Span Backwards Wechsler (2000 [WAIS-III], 2002 [WISC-III])	Cool EF	Working memory. Participants listened to a sequence of numbers and had to repeat these numbers in reverse order. The length of the sequences increased from two to eight numbers	Length of the longest successfully reproduced sequence measuring (verbal) working memory
Timetest Barkley (1998)	Temporal processing	Time reproduction. Participants were shown a light bulb that was illuminated during either 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, or 20-s intervals and had to reproduce these intervals as accurately as possible by pressing the space-bar.	Mean absolute discrepancy between the presentation interval and response interval
Motor Timing Van Meel et al. (2005)	Temporal processing	Time production. Participants were presented a sound after which they had to press a button, producing a 1-s interval. For each trial, visual feedback was given: correct (for responses between lower and upper boundary), too short (for responses below lower boundary) or too long (for responses above upper boundary). Boundaries were set at 500 and 1,500 ms at the beginning of the task, and were dynamically adjusted during the task to accomplish 50% positive and 50% negative feedback trials	Median of response times measuring timing precision. Consecutive variability of response times measuring response consistency
	Hot EF	Reward and punishment sensitivity. In addition to performance feedback (neutral trials), the task contained a rewarded reinforcement type where reward (15 cents gain) was added to positive feedback on correct trials, and a penalized reinforcement type where penalty (15 cents loss) was added to negative feedback on incorrect trials	Median response time and response time variability were compared between neutral, reward, and penalty trials, measuring reinforcement sensitivity
Temporal discounting Scheres et al. (2006)	Hot EF	Delay of gratification. Participants had to choose between small variable rewards (1, 2, 3 or 4 cents) that were delivered immediately, and a larger reward (5 cents) that was delivered after a variable delay (0, 5, 10, 20, or 30 s). Each small immediate reward was paired twice with every delay for the large reward	Subjective value of the delayed reward measuring delay gratification
Identification of facial emotions De Sonneville (2005)	Emotion recognition	Recognition of facial emotion. Participants were shown a picture of an adult face displaying an emotion and had to compare the expressed emotion with the target emotion (happy, sad, and angry), by pressing a yes/no button. Pictures remained on screen until a response was given. For every emotion, a 50/50 distribution of pictures that contained the target emotion and pictures that contained a non-target emotion was shown. The sequence of the tested target emotions was randomly assigned	Percentage of correct responses and mean reaction time measuring accuracy and speed of facial emotion recognition
Prosody De Sonneville (2005)	Emotion recognition	Recognition of vocal emotion. Participants were presented spoken sentences by an adult with a neutral content, with a happy, sad, angry, or scared voice intonation. Participants had to identify the emotion by naming the emotion	Percentage of correct responses and mean reaction time measuring accuracy and speed of vocal emotion recognition

Note. EF = executive functioning; SSRT = stop signal reaction time.